Broken system: Hillary won the popular vote but lost the election...

It is not a democracy when a handful of select individuals (the electoral college), determine the outcome of an election.

Exactly, but it never was, and for that reason. It's a republic. True democracy is way too leftist for people here

I would rather it be a democracy. Is what it is I suppose.

That said, if Trump won the popular vote, but lost the election... I have a strong feeling Trump supporters would be crying foul and Dems would be
telling them to suck it up (just like the members above are doing). Both sides would be guilty of this. The electoral college is only a
problem for most people if it doesn't work in their favor.

Right now, small (population-wise) states like Delaware, Montana, Wyoming, Etc., get 3 electoral votes. This is more than 1% of what is needed to
elect a president (270). These electoral votes from these small states can make a difference and cause presidential candidates to come campaign there
and listen to their demands (see New Hampshire). Most of these states have populations which are far far less than 1% of the countries
population.

Okay then it doesn't track population at the extremes, or at least the lower end too accurately.

With a pure popular vote system, the fear of small states, which the constitution was drafted to address, is that the larger population states
such as NY and California would hold all the power because they would provide the vast majority of the votes needed to get elected and the small
states would be forgotten as candidates would spend all their time in the big big states because the vote payoff would be greater.

I think this was more relevant before our technology affords us such ease of travel and communication. Heck, there's a global Americanized
culture forming the world over due to the information age and our high ranking still. The fear makes sense for when the law was passed, but it holds
little relevance for the current landscape.

That said, the electoral system yields its own weird results. It leads to many of the big states being almost ignored in the campaigns after
the primaries end, and the campaigns centering virtually all of their effort on 5-10 "swing" states.

We see how well that worked out for Hillary, no?

My point is that right or wrong, it is very hard to amend the Constitution for any purpose due to the ratification process. To pass something
that would be perceived to pass power from a bunch of small states over to a few big states, is almost impossible to imagine.

Right now, small (population-wise) states like Delaware, Montana, Wyoming, Etc., get 3 electoral votes. This is more than 1% of what is needed to
elect a president (270). These electoral votes from these small states can make a difference and cause presidential candidates to come campaign there
and listen to their demands (see New Hampshire). Most of these states have populations which are far far less than 1% of the countries
population.

Okay then it doesn't track population at the extremes, or at least the lower end too accurately.

With a pure popular vote system, the fear of small states, which the constitution was drafted to address, is that the larger population states
such as NY and California would hold all the power because they would provide the vast majority of the votes needed to get elected and the small
states would be forgotten as candidates would spend all their time in the big big states because the vote payoff would be greater.

I think this was more relevant before our technology affords us such ease of travel and communication. Heck, there's a global Americanized
culture forming the world over due to the information age and our high ranking still. The fear makes sense for when the law was passed, but it holds
little relevance for the current landscape.

That said, the electoral system yields its own weird results. It leads to many of the big states being almost ignored in the campaigns after
the primaries end, and the campaigns centering virtually all of their effort on 5-10 "swing" states.

We see how well that worked out for Hillary, no?

My point is that right or wrong, it is very hard to amend the Constitution for any purpose due to the ratification process. To pass something
that would be perceived to pass power from a bunch of small states over to a few big states, is almost impossible to imagine.

So we have two examples of how our system is broken then?

But the thing is.....it ISN'T broken......if Hillary did a better job campaigning in the swing states and in the states that was traditionally
Democrat that was straight out flipped (Pennsylvania, Michigan etc.) (and she wasn't unpopular due to rampant corruption) she would have done better
and it could just as easily have gone against Trump

If you can't or simply won't understand the concept then I can't help you understand how it works.....in small countries a democracy works fine and is
very fair as most people want the same things.....in a very large country not so much as the needs of one area do not always coincide with the needs
(or wants) of the others.

How can you ignore that?
55! That's equivalent to dozens of other states combined!
And they almost always vote the same way.

Hell they colored it blue before the votes were even over 30% counted.
I think that's the most disturbing aspect of the whole thing in itself!
55 votes and we all know where they stand before they even say so...

Within a decade both Texas and California will be blue unless we end up with some other new hip tech mecca.

I see. Well then you obviously have a vastly superior understanding here.

Carry on.

I'm sorry if I came off sounding condescending....wasn't intentional....just tired. Think of specific issues that effect the country as a whole
today......firearms legislation for example......some areas really like the ideas of regulating it (in some cases severely). Others don't want
legislation of that kind......why should the people of California which is 3000 miles from say New Hampshire and outpopulates them as a state say 20
times over be able to dictate policy (by electing a leader that is all for firearm legislation) for New Hampshire by sheer weight of the people who
live there? All of the states are represented by electorals that depend on the size of the population of the state to a minimum of 3 for the least
populated....this ensures that all states regardless of population have a representative voice that is not entirely dependent on the population of the
area. The electors are supposed to follow the wishes of the people who elected them as representatives (though they sometimes do what they want
anyways) and when they do you vote them out in the next election with a vote that is strictly democratic if you don't agree with how they cast their
electoral votes. It is a failsafe so that large population areas aren't automatically granted the power of electing a leader who will try and
formulate legislation unpopular with sections of the country.....

I am not sure if I am explaining it clearly...someone else can probably explain it better....I have been up 24 hours and am quite tired lol

This whole "she won the popular vote" is a red herring. One effect of the electoral college is to depress voting in certain circumstances. For
example, if you lived in California and are a conservative, you'd know that your vote for President would be overwhelmed by all the libs, who
outnumber you in California, thus making Cali, NY, IL, "safe" states for (D)'s *in the electoral college*. Your vote won't count, so you might not
even vote.

The opposite, if you lived in Wyoming and are a conservative, you might not vote because you know Wy is going (R) whether you show up or not. Again, a
vote not cast because of how the electoral college works. A vote not cast is a vote not counted in the "popular" vote tally.

Like when I lived in Illinois, there was no point in me even going to the polls in mayoral elections because there often wasn't even an opposition.
So I didn't vote. The real number to look at is how many eligible voters actually voted.

In a popular vote election, your vote counts equally to everyone else's. So there is incentive for you to get out and vote. Different system,
different incentives.

congrats to the republicans, you shocked a heck of alot of people with that win!!!
now, we can sit back and see what he can accomplish.

there was a disturbing trend in this election though, and I think that not only trump and hillary has to work on solving it, but also us.
close to 50% of the republicans who were poled said they actually feared a clinton presidency, while about the same average of democrats said they
feared a trump presidency.
it's time to prove those fears unfounded.

but, then, this election comes around and overturns the map some....
maybe there was more republicans sitting on the sidelines in previous elections thinking this way that just couldn't do it this time and it made a
difference in states like pennsylvania and michigan.

Why do all the major cities consistently vote liberal? What is it about city life that makes you become a whiny depraved social justice warrior?

I was hoping Trump might flip NY. Nope. We have 5 major cities - NYC, Albany, Syracuse, Buffalo, Rochester. All of them voted democrat. All the other
counties in the state voted Republican. If you look at a county by county map of NY, the vast majority of it is red. The only blue spots are urban
centers.

This is why the democrats got the popular vote - big cities. The Republicans got more electoral votes because they won the vast majority of state
counties.

If all our cities got bombed into ruin, I think I would be happy with what it would do to United States politics.

It just gets me. Looking at the electoral map of NY. All these counties are red, then you look at New York county and 88% of the people there voted
for hillary. Was she giving blowjobs to all the million people living there?

We do not live in a democracy. The United States is a republic. The electoral votes represent a voice for each state. According to the system, without
them the election would be unbalanced. The system is therefore not broken...it worked as it's designed to work.

That is if you actually believe the system even exists in the first place, if you believe it is more than just a facade, more than a running joke on
the American public. If you do not believe that...well, that is a different topic entirely.

I do feel for those who wanted so badly for Hillary to win. I think it would be awesome if those who are taking every opportunity to gloat over the
win like a pack of cackling hyenas would instead start behaving like the adults they're supposed to be and help everyone come together to focus on the
very serious issues that we still currently face...but those who behave that way on these forums have consistently acted like children throughout the
entire race, and I don't expect that to change any time soon. That is disappointing, because those issues are not going away, and now more than ever,
we need to be united rather than hopelessly divided.

originally posted by: dawnstar
congrats to the republicans, you shocked a heck of alot of people with that win!!!
now, we can sit back and see what he can accomplish.

there was a disturbing trend in this election though, and I think that not only trump and hillary has to work on solving it, but also us.
close to 50% of the republicans who were poled said they actually feared a clinton presidency, while about the same average of democrats said they
feared a trump presidency.
it's time to prove those fears unfounded.

well said and couldn't agree more

you too tigertatzen...could not agree more....it is time to let it go and work for the betterment of the country

edit on 9-11-2016 by
Darkphoenix77 because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-11-2016 by Darkphoenix77 because: (no reason given)

edit on
9-11-2016 by Darkphoenix77 because: 3rd time for spelling is a charm

Well people, maybe this is what the democrats should have done when they controlled all 3 branches...no they installed and crammed the unaffordable
healthcare act. Guess the republicans will do the opposite in their turn.

Though, to their credit, I don't believe the representatives have to vote the will of the people, but should no matter what. This ensure the people's
represented vote.

It is not a democracy when a handful of select individuals (the electoral college), determine the outcome of an election.

1. We haven't had a democracy we have had an Oligarch,

2.I think the Establishment letting Trump win is more about following Machiavellian tactics than anything else.

Had Trump lost that could have caused a large portion of the population to revolt and give up on the system. In the long term its more important to
keep up the illusion of the peoples will and illusion of their vote mattering, than to push the population enough to a point of revolt.

Trump had a following whether you agree with him or not which can't be denied. She was a manufactured candidate with the DNC,MSM, and even some GOP
members behind her. Yet she had to pay for support at rallies and social media bots.

It would have been to obvious if she won and in the face of the masses for it to not cause a disruption in the system.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.